Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The committee met at 1301 in committee room 1.

Subcommittee report

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. We’re here to discuss Bill 41, An Act to amend various Acts in the interests of patient-centred care.

We all have in front of us the report of the subcommittee on committee business. Do we have a mover?

M^me France Gélinas: I’ll move it.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Gélinas, you’re going to read it?

M^me France Gélinas: So I read it into the record?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Please.

M^me France Gélinas: Here we go:

Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly;

Subcommittee on committee business;

Report of the subcommittee;

Monday, October 31, 2016.

Your subcommittee on committee business met on Monday, October 31, 2016, to consider a method of proceeding on Bill 41, An Act to amend various Acts in the interests of patient-centred care, and recommends the following:

(1) That the committee hold public hearings on Bill 41 in Toronto on Wednesday, November 16 and Wednesday, November 23, 2016, and subject to the authorization of the House, on Monday, November 14 and Monday, November 21, 2016.

(2) That the Chair request of the House leaders, that a motion be moved in the House authorizing the committee to meet until 6 p.m. on November 16 and 23, 2016 and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. on November 14 and 21, 2016, for the purpose of public hearings, and until 6 p.m. on November 30, 2016, for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

(3) That the Clerk of the Committee, with the authorization of the Chair, post information regarding public hearings on the Ontario parliamentary channel, the Legislative Assembly website and with the CNW NewsWire service.

(4) That interested parties who wish to be considered to make an oral presentation contact the Clerk of the Committee by 12 noon on Thursday, November 10, 2016.

(5) That the Clerk of the Committee provide the members of the subcommittee with a list of requests to appear following the deadline, and that the members prioritize and return the list by 4 p.m. the same day.

(6) That groups and individuals be offered up to nine minutes for their presentation followed by up to two minutes of questions and comments from each caucus.

(7) That the deadline for written submissions be 6 p.m. on Wednesday, November 23, 2016.

(8) That the committee meet for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Wednesday, November 30, 2016.

(9) That the Clerk of the Committee, in consultation with the Chair, be authorized, prior to the passage of the report of the subcommittee, to commence making any preliminary arrangements necessary to facilitate the committee’s proceedings.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a motion—the Clerk is coming around—for the committee to consider. So once it comes around—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Sorry. Amendments, Ms. Wong?

Ms. Soo Wong: Amendments to the motion. So I want to read that into the record as well. I won’t read it until everybody gets a copy.

Okay. Seeing that the Clerk has distributed the amendments to the motion, I’m going to read it into the record. Is that okay, Mr. Chair?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Absolutely. Go ahead.

Ms. Soo Wong: I move that point (2) be struck out and replaced with the following:

“(2) That the Chair request of the House leaders that a motion be moved in the House authorizing the committee to meet from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on November 14 and 21, 2016, for the purpose of public hearings.”

Motion number 2—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Sorry. We’ll deal with the first amendment first, the first motion.

Any discussion on the motion put forward by Ms. Wong? Ms. Gélinas.

M^me France Gélinas: Can somebody do the math very quickly? If we were to agree to this, how many spots for—pardon me?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Twenty-six.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): In total?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): There are 26 spots in total.

M^me France Gélinas: Twenty-six. That’s it; that’s all? Only 26 people would be able, if we use our time fully.

How many people do we have now, without having advertised, who want to speak to this?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Forty-one.

M^me France Gélinas: And we have 41. Okay. That’s not acceptable to me. Those are public hearings. And we haven’t even let people know that they can put their names forward. I have no problem with doing the Mondays, but we have to find other times to accommodate people who want to be heard on this bill.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Yurek.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m in agreement with the third party. Maybe the government can explain why they want to restrict people from coming forth and having deputations. I think the original motion set it out pretty clearly, gave enough spaces and time for people to voice their opinion. This is a wide-changing bill on our health care system. It’s going to affect every Ontarian. There are quite a few groups that have a lot of questions and/or want to add to the process, and I think we should be allowing this to occur as much as possible.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Chair, with regard to this, we are adding two extra days. There are another, I would say, about 75 minutes per day.

I just want to remind the members opposite that I sat on the finance committee for a number of years. We would have a deluge of people coming before the committee about budget consultations and budget-related stuff. The fact is that members also know that they can do a written submission, and they do get equal weighting when they come.

The fact that the piece with regard to the bill before us—everybody knows this is an important bill to get through, to have a conversation on. We already heard some debate. I know the concerns about wanting more people to be heard. They will be given an opportunity to submit. It’s not like we’re saying no submissions.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thank you. Ms. Gélinas.

M^me France Gélinas: This is a health bill. It affects every Ontarian. We have to take into account what I call the human side of what we do. Right now, there are enough people interested in this bill, and we have just started. I think in the subcommittee—I was there, and I expect close to 100 people representing different organizations will want to be heard on this bill.

This is a process that will help us build support for this bill. If those people have a chance to be heard, have a chance to have their arguments aired, feel like they participated in the process, you are in a much better position to come up with some kind of a compromise. They may not get everything that they wanted, but there are just as many people who will speak for a clause as others who will speak against. The idea is that by taking the time to hear all sides of an argument, we are in a much better position as legislators to say, “Well, nobody always gets everything they want. We made compromises on many points. Some people wanted it, some people opposed it, and we kept” whatever was there, or whatever ends up being in the bill.

There are petitions out there. You know that there is a growing chorus of people opposing the bill. Give them an opportunity to be heard, to vent their opposition, to be listened to, and at the end of the day it will be better for our health care system than to only select 26 out of the already 41—and I’m guessing close to 100—that would want to be heard.

1310

For people who never participate in the legislative process to write something—it’s not going to happen. They want to be heard. They have something to say and they want their represented officials to hear them. This is the least we can do to make sure that an important health bill actually rolls out into our health care system and into our province in a way where it will have more support. Otherwise, you will impose a bill that people will resist, and nothing good will come of that.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Thank you. Mr. Yurek.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Again, I agree with the third party and having the public come out and give their thoughts on Bill 41. I’ve been in contact with numerous patient groups who were left out of the process of creating this bill, and now they would like to have their opportunity to have input. The government has already time-allocated debate in second reading on this bill, so they’ve already shortened the amount of time we would normally have to debate this bill, bringing forth our constituents’ concerns. I just can’t see why they want to inhibit the voice of the public from having any further say in this bill by limiting debate. By what we’re calculating—how many hours back is that? We’re looking at close to almost 10 hours of deputations cut from being able to come and speak.

I understand that they’re under a time strain. They want to push this bill through before we recess. But I still think we have the opportunity. We’re willing to bring our members forward—and I’m sure the third party is—to sit here for as long as it takes over those four days that we’ve put forward in order to hear people. I don’t know why the government doesn’t want to participate, sit in this room and listen to people speak. I would like to know why you don’t want to be here on those Monday afternoons and those Wednesday afternoons to hear people. I don’t get it. You have enough members to sit here and listen. Why don’t we do it?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Yes, it’s good. I take a different point of view. We want to hear everyone, but if it becomes rhetorical and we have the same—if you have 20 doctors coming in, they’re going to say the same thing. After a while, it becomes—

Interjection.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’m just using an example—say it’s doctors. Their argument is going to be framed the same way. You’re going to hear the same regurgitation. Do you want to do that, or do you want to hear select—whoever comes before us—different points of view?

At some point, you have to cut it off somewhere. You can’t go on ad infinitum here, a regurgitation of the same argument. There is a scope, there is a—you can always send written submissions in. Everybody has that opportunity. Where I am from here—it’s democratic: We want to hear people, but we don’t want to hear regurgitating the same thing for five or 10 days in a row. Then it becomes kind of pointless.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Kiwala.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak about this. I certainly understand that it’s important to hear as many different deputations as possible. There are absolutely no written limits to the number of submissions that can be made online, so that’s one thing. The other thing that I want to just suggest—I don’t know what you’ll think of this possibility, but number 6 says, “That groups and individuals be offered up to nine minutes for their presentation followed by up to two minutes of questions and comments from each caucus.” Another way to get more people in might be to shorten the nine-minute time period. I’m putting that out there as a possibility for feedback, but I think that we’re adding a couple of extra windows—

Interjections.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Just one—sorry, I was just going to say that we’re just dealing with the one, the first amendment, right now.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Okay. It pertains to it, though.

Interjection.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Yes, right, sorry. Continue.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m done.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d just like for the Clerk to explain to me, for my understanding, how much are we changing? I did a quick calculation, but I’ll defer to the Clerk. The way I see it, there was four hours, four hours and five hours, which would be 13. So what is it exactly? We’re talking about, if we accept this amendment, we go to two hours and 30 minutes versus 13 hours? That’s quite a radical change. Am I wrong?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Just a quick calculation here—I’m just sort of working that out. What was originally listed in the subcommittee report was from 2 to 6 on two Mondays. That would be four hours each Monday. That puts that at eight hours for Mondays. One until 6 on two Wednesdays is five hours each Wednesday. That’s 10 hours there, so that’s 18 hours over the course of two weeks.

Mr. Robert Bailey: So it’s even more dramatic. We’re talking—in this amendment, you’ll go to two hours and 30 minutes versus 18 hours?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Then it would be 1 to 3, so two hours each Wednesday, and an hour and 15 minutes each Monday. That’s three hours and 15 minutes per week, or six and a half hours. So, as a rough calculation, if I’ve got that right, one suggests 18 hours and one suggests six and a half hours.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Okay. That’s what I wanted to clarify.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Yurek is up.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I just raised questions from what the government spoke about a minute ago, about concerns about hearing doctors speaking at the committee. They’ve already shut them out of preparing this legislation. I think it’s an opportunity for them to come speak.

Mr. Granville Anderson: That was just an example—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): One at a time.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: However, to hear the same concerns at committee I think is beneficial. When you hear many concerns on the same issue, that might be a flag for this committee to actually look at maybe amending this legislation, as opposed to hearing it once. So I don’t think limiting the amount of people who may have the same thoughts from coming forward at this committee is beneficial to democracy or this legislation.

Again, we’re not asking to sit five days in a row, as was mentioned again by the government. We’re asking to sit Monday afternoon twice and Wednesday afternoon twice, for extended hours. It’s not a lot to ask considering that this legislation is going to be affecting every Ontarian in this province who seeks health care in this province. We need to ensure we get it right. We don’t want to come back with an Auditor General’s report down the line saying that 39% of the bureaucracy is chewing up the money, like occurred recently. We want to make sure that we fix the situation, that the government doesn’t make the mistakes that are in the bill and that we get it fixed.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Gélinas?

M^me France Gélinas: I will take it step by step. What is the opposition to sitting on Wednesday past 3 o’clock? Why don’t we sit until 6? I don’t get it. What’s the argument that says that we should not take advantage of the fact that the House sits until 6 o’clock to also sit until 6 o’clock?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong?

Ms. Soo Wong: Mr. Chair, I’m calculating the time in my motion, the first motion, number 1. The first two dates add an additional 75 minutes each, so it’s 150 minutes. The next two dates, the 16th and the 23rd, are 120 minutes each. That’s 390 minutes. That’s what I’m calculating.

With regard to the member opposite’s asking why the Wednesday afternoon, it’s my understanding that there are a couple of committees also sitting on Wednesday afternoons, and there’s a concern about members’ availability to sit on those committees and for quorum purposes. That’s what I’ve been told.

The other piece is, what the government is offering is now an additional 150 minutes on top of our traditional committee meetings, which is 240. We are now at almost 400 minutes for these public hearings. It’s not like we’re cutting back; we’re actually adding more.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Yurek, and then Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Chair, it’s so magnanimous of the government to actually add time. However, I don’t agree with their commitment that they wouldn’t have enough members to sit an extra afternoon at the Legislature. They have 50-plus members on that side of the House. I’m sure they could find five who would be willing to listen to the public bring forth their concerns on Bill 41. The official opposition has no problem with filling the seats.

I’m sure, if there’s a location problem, we can find one on the grounds of Queen’s Park to host this committee.

I just find it appalling that this government doesn’t want to hear the public discuss Bill 41, and they’re thinking what they’re doing is good for democracy in Ontario. This bill is changing the health care system for Ontarians. It’s a massive change in the system. The government wants to limit debate and they want to limit public participation in this bill, and that is terrible.

1320

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Mr. Anderson.

Mr. Granville Anderson: That’s not quite true. We want to hear from everyone. When I said “doctors,” I didn’t mean it per se. What I meant was the same organization, a branch of the same organization, and that the arguments are going to be the same. That’s where I’m coming from. I don’t think we need to sit and listen to 20 people saying the exact same thing verbatim. That’s all I’m saying.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Madame Gélinas.

M^me France Gélinas: This is so offensive. In health care, we have 27 registered professions. Right there, if every professional who will be affected by this bill wants their associations to be heard, that’s it. Nobody else can speak.

We have over 152 hospitals. If any of them want to be heard, we can’t. Should I keep going on? We have 96 community health centres. We have 26 nurse-practitioner-led clinics. We have 10 aboriginal health access centres. All of those people, all of those organizations, are affected by this bill. It is normal that they will want to be heard.

I know that the OMA will find their place at the table, and the nurses’ associations—the big ones will find their place at the table. But this bill doesn’t only affect the big ones. It affects a whole lot of people who don’t usually take part and who want to be heard.

If the only arguments I heard were that the Liberal government doesn’t have enough members to sit, this is pretty thin, compared to people who are about to see changes—some of them for the better. The Association of Ontario Health Centres is really happy with the bill. They want to come here. They want to talk about it, and they want to say “you could make” etc.

This is offensive, to say that you don’t have enough members. If this is really the case, and the only reason why not, then I say that we sit Wednesday, as soon as your committees are done, if you have committees that sit. There are no committees that sit before 4, because the standing orders don’t go before 4. In theory, on Wednesday, we could go from 1 until 4, because you will have all of the members necessary to go, and then we make up the other two hours after 6, once you have enough Liberal members to sit.

I’m trying to find a compromise there that will allow people to come and be heard, and accommodate the fact that you don’t have enough members present during legislative time.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m not sure, given this conversation right now—I’m going to make a suggestion, Mr. Chair. Just indulge me for a minute.

Given that in item 6, the subcommittee identified nine minutes each, I’m calculating that if we scale back the time, we can accommodate all 41 people who are on the list. I know in the past, in different committees, when we’ve had hearings, no one used the nine minutes or six minutes or seven minutes. If we change that portion, there will be an allowance—I’m just calculating through the 90 minutes. If everybody has three minutes, and if there are no questions, I think there is a way to address these 41 witnesses already registered. That’s what I heard the Clerk say. Am I correct?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): As of me coming to this meeting, there were 41 registered.

Ms. Soo Wong: If the opposition is interested in hearing Ontarians—I think everybody wants to be heard. Nine out of 10 times, they will leave us with a written submission. That’s what I’m feeling: Mostly, they do. I’m happy, from our side—I can’t speak to my colleagues; I haven’t told them—that I will be happy to give up our time to ask Q&A. Okay? If the intent of this public hearing is to hear Ontarians, my piece here is that the comments made by the opposition—I’ve respectfully heard you. I’m happy to make an amendment to number 6 so that we can hear everybody. In previous public hearings—Mr. Chair, you can attest to that—no one used their entire 10 minutes, 17 minutes, whatever minutes they were.

My piece is, if I hear the opposition correctly, they want to hear everybody who has registered. I’m offering to amend item 6, as a friendly amendment, so that we can allot the 41 witnesses who have already registered.

M^me France Gélinas: She interpreted my intent wrong. I don’t only want the 41—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Sorry, just one sec. We’re on amendment 1. Any further debate on amendment 1? Ms. Gélinas.

M^me France Gélinas: First of all, your argument doesn’t hold that you don’t have members from 3 till 4 on Wednesday, because there are no other committees that sit from 3 till 4 on Wednesday. As a show of goodwill, we should be able to sit until 4 because none of your members are on committees from 3 till 4 on Wednesday afternoon.

Ms. Soo Wong: So you’re asking for—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: Am I hearing correctly from the member opposite that you want to extend the time on November 14—let me see. I’m just looking at the Wednesdays. It’s the 14th and the 21st from 1 to 4. Am I hearing that?

M^me France Gélinas: No, I’m saying that your argument does not hold. You cannot tell this committee that you don’t have members to sit from 3 till 4, because none of your members are in committee from 3 till 4. I’m telling you that your argument doesn’t hold.

Ms. Soo Wong: But, Mr. Chair—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Wong, and then Mr. Yurek.

Ms. Soo Wong: Okay. My comment is the fact that if we are going to extend it to 6, there could be potential challenges, because Wednesday is the only day, as you know, Mr. Chair, that we have two hours—many of my colleagues, even including myself, have stakeholders coming to meet with us etc. I can’t prejudge that piece. I mean, even today is Take Our Kids to Work Day. It isn’t fair, okay? I haven’t consulted my colleagues that you’re asking now—your suggestion is that we extend the time on Wednesday—

M^me France Gélinas: No, it is not. I am telling you that your argument does not hold—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Sorry, just one at time.

Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m done.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): You’re done? Mr. Yurek.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I come to Toronto to do my legislative duties, and one of my legislative duties is sitting at committee, dealing with legislation and listening to the public. It’s not for take-your-kid-to-work day or having stakeholders come in. That comes secondary. If you do have meetings, you’re given ample time to move those meetings. There’s two weeks away before we start dealing with this legislation. You have time to move those stakeholder meetings.

Second of all, the proposal being proposed by the member opposite with regard to cutting back their time—you’re only offering six and a half hours to start with. That doesn’t come close to dealing with the 41 people who have already put their time forward. I’d like to see the math that you’re putting together on how much time you’re actually going to free up by not using your two minutes to question and/or how much time you’re offering to cut back on deputations to see how many people that would actually accommodate. I don’t think it’s as great as you think it is.

Again, I still haven’t heard a valid reason why the government does not want to sit and listen to the public between the times that were in the original motion of the subcommittee. I’m still waiting for a valid reason.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any further debate on this amendment? Any further debate?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: A recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Are the members ready to vote? Ms. Gélinas.

M^me France Gélinas: We all know that there is a very large group of people who are opposed to this bill. There are also people who are in support of the bill. You can fan the flames of dissent and have problems at every step of the way. Health care is with people. When people are angry, it doesn’t matter how good the health care is, they will still be angry.

You have an opportunity to de-escalate all that. All you have to do is take the time to listen to them. You will de-escalate it. You will pass third reading, royal assent, and people will have come to see that that was the right decision to do.

But by keeping them from being heard, you’re just going to make the whole process so much more difficult, and at the end of the day, you will have a negative impact on our health care system, because this is what this is all about. It’s about making our health care system better.

I would say, let’s put it back to the House leaders, if they can figure out a way to make sure that the committee work is distributed in a way that allows us to sit on Mondays and Wednesdays. I, as well as Jim, happen to sit as House leaders. We make things happen.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: One last comment. I would like to correct the record. There are no online submissions. There are written submissions, to go by fax or be mailed.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any further debate? Are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Recorded vote.

Ayes

Anderson, Bradley, Dhillon, Kiwala, Wong.

Nays

Bailey, Gélinas, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): I declare the amendment carried.

We have amendment 2. Ms. Wong.

Ms. Soo Wong: I move that point (4) be amended by striking out “Thursday, November 10” and replacing it with “Wednesday, November 9”.

It was brought to our attention that November 11 is Remembrance Day. The Clerk has asked that we consider advancing the dates on motion 2. That’s all.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any debate on the amendment? Are the members ready to vote? Shall it carry? Carried.

Any more discussion on the subcommittee report, as amended?

M^me France Gélinas: I will take them up on their offer that they not ask questions and that, rather than having 15 minutes, we would go to 13 minutes per deputant to try to accommodate more.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Kiwala.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: We haven’t had a discussion about that. I don’t think that we’re in a position to agree to that at this time. I would be willing to offer that nine minutes for a presentation be taken back to three, and if it was three minutes per presentation plus two minutes of questions and comments from each caucus, that would bring the entire round to nine minutes.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Further debate?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Is that an amendment?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Sorry, is that an amendment?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m not agreeing to the government side not questioning without consultation.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Are you moving an amendment to the subcommittee report right now?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I guess I’m doing that, then, yes.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): You are.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Okay.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Do the members need it written out?

Interjections: Yes.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Okay. We’ll take a small recess to write out the amendment.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Stay close by.

The committee recessed from 1332 to 1338.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Okay, we have an amendment in front of us. Ms. Kiwala, if you’d read that into the record, please.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that point number (6) be amended by striking out “nine” and replacing it with “three”.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any debate on this amendment? Mr. Yurek.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m quite shocked. First of all, in the last debate we had, they offered the government not to speak at all, but apparently you want to keep that right, and that’s fine. However, I don’t know why you’ve raised it as a point in the last argument if you weren’t going to follow through on your word.

Secondly, I just can’t believe that—we already had a discussion about this government limiting the amount of people that can appear at this committee. Now you want to limit the amount of time they can speak at the committee. Going from nine minutes to three minutes is an insult.

As we mentioned earlier, people from southwestern Ontario are not going to drive two-plus hours, deal with traffic, find some parking, then come sit down to have three minutes of their time taken, let alone someone from Ottawa. I bet you that someone from Scarborough probably wouldn’t want to make the drive in.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Even Kingston.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Kingston. Good point.

The damage has been done with this government limiting public discussion at this committee. Don’t make it any worse.

I suggest they withdraw this motion. It’s ridiculous.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Kiwala.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: Thank you. My understanding is that there was a period of time that was agreed on—I could be wrong—with all three parties. We’ve got a lot of legislation that we all would like to pass before we rise for the holidays. I suggested the change to make an accommodation, so that we could hear more people. That was my intention.

My intention, obviously, is not to limit anything. We’ve got three weeks that we can receive written submissions on this piece of legislation. There is no limit to the number of submissions that can come in. There’s no limit to the length that those submissions can be.

M^me France Gélinas: She’s not speaking to the motion, Chair.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m responding to a point that was brought up by the opposition. That’s the point that I need to make here, is that my suggestion of three minutes instead of nine is so we could accommodate more people.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Ms. Gélinas?

M^me France Gélinas: We have in front of us a piece of legislation that is 47 pages long. By the time the people of, let’s say, the Ontario Hospital Association sit down and put their names and titles into the record so that Hansard can have their names and titles correctly, their three minutes will be up.

Think that through a little bit. You have a substantive piece of legislation which a lot of groups have spent a lot of time reading and understanding. Some of it depends on how you understand and how you interpret the bill. This is not the kind of thing you can do in 30 seconds. Do you really think that it is respectful to ask those people to present in three minutes? You can’t order a coffee at Tim Hortons in three minutes in my neck of the woods, so no, three minutes is not on.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: That’s fine. We’ll bring it back to nine. I was just trying to offer to have more people—

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Are you withdrawing your motion?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: That’s right. We’ll go back to nine.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Okay. So the motion has been withdrawn.

We’re back to the subcommittee report, as amended. Any debate on the subcommittee report, as amended? Are the members ready to vote? Ms. Gélinas?

M^me France Gélinas: I want to give them one last chance to send it back to the House leaders. If you really think that the only reason you have to change the subcommittee is because you think you don’t have enough members to be able to sit on Wednesday afternoon and Monday afternoon, let the House leaders look at it. We move things around all the time.

It is either true that you don’t have enough members, and therefore you have to make those amendments—if it is true, at least give the House leaders a shot to try to arrange committee schedules. We have done this hundreds of times in the past. Otherwise, if this is the only argument why we are limiting debate, it is pretty flimsy on a piece of legislation that is as important and as contentious as Bill 41.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Any further debate? Are the members ready to vote?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Recorded vote.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): Recorded vote.

Ayes

Anderson, Bradley, Dhillon, Kiwala, Wong.

Nays

Bailey, Gélinas, Yurek.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Just one more piece of business before we adjourn.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Very quickly: In the subcommittee report, what we didn’t discuss is research’s role in a summary of presentations. If it is all right with the committee, we would suggest that research have a summary ready by the Friday following the last day of public hearings at about 4 or 5 o’clock. Does that work for everybody?

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): November 25.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): November 25.

M^me France Gélinas: So we get the summary on the Friday, which means legislative research has Monday and Tuesday to get the amendments ready? Could we make this at noon on Friday?

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Trevor Day): Yes.

The Chair (Mr. Monte McNaughton): All agreed? Great. Thank you.

The committee adjourned at 1344.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Chair / Président

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président

Mr. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville PC)

Mr. Granville Anderson (Durham L)

Mr. Robert Bailey (Sarnia–Lambton PC)

Mr. James J. Bradley (St. Catharines L)

Mr. Steve Clark (Leeds–Grenville PC)

Mr. Vic Dhillon (Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest L)

Ms. Sophie Kiwala (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les Îles L)

Mr. Michael Mantha (Algoma–Manitoulin ND)

Mr. Monte McNaughton (Lambton–Kent–Middlesex PC)

Ms. Soo Wong (Scarborough–Agincourt L)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants

M^me France Gélinas (Nickel Belt ND)

Mr. Jeff Yurek (Elgin–Middlesex–London PC)

Clerk / Greffier

Mr. Trevor Day

Staff / Personnel

Ms. Carrie Hull, research officer,
Research Services